Sunday Random Notes-- Banksters, Joe Miller, The GOP Nazi Guy, And Getting Out The Vote

I don't know if it was more about being exposed as a crook or because he was exposed as a fascist thug, but last week Joe Miller's campaign started to implode-- big time-- and in a state where fascist thugs are pretty mainstream and corruption is the name of the game. I guess voters just don't want that stuff in the headlines so much. Today, the NRSC signaled what teabaggers always suspected, that they're throwing the Craziest Catch overboard and getting behind primary sore-loser Lisa Murkowski's write-in campaign as the GOP's last desperate attempt to keep Alaska from winding up with two Democratic senators!

Cornyn, of course, is publicly denying the GOP is finished with Miller, petrified teabaggers will turn against establishment Republican candidates already distrusted by teabaggers, particularly Mark Kirk (IL), Roy Blunt (MO) and Rob Portman (OH), 3 Republicans with solid voting records against everything the tea party claims to stand for. If the extreme right of the fragile GOP coalition turns against these 3 as revenge for the betrayal of Miller, any hopes for a Republican takeover of the Senate will be immediately dashed. ABC News reported that "a high level GOP source" had let them know that the NRSC is now banking on Murkowski, who is widely hated-- as much as Kirk, Blunt and Portman-- by the teabaggers and especially by Palin, who would rather see Scott McAdams win than her mortal foe Murkowski. Teabaggers are very aware that all NRSC ads attack McAdams and none have attacked Murkowski. When someone close to her explained this to Palin it drove her into a frenzy.

It's a remarkable turnaround for Murkowski.  She was punished by party leaders last month-- unceremoniously stripped of her position as ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and her role in Senate leadership -- when she refused to bow out of the Senate race and endorse Miller.  But she has consistently said she is still a Republican and will caucus with the Republican party if she wins.

The nightmare scenario for Republicans is that McAdams comes in second on Election Day, trailing "write-in candidate."  Those write-in votes won't be counted unless there are more write-in votes than there are votes for any candidate on the ballot.  Once the write-in votes are counted, however, some of them will inevitably be disqualified (illegible writing, wrong name, etc.).  And a small number will be for candidates other than Murkowski.  If enough are tossed out, second place McAdams would be the winner.

I don't think anyone who's followed the election campaign even minimally believes that Miller-- or for that matter corporate shills like Kirk, Blunt, Portman and Murkowski-- believe it is the job of an interventionist government to act as a counterbalance against gigantically powerful and completely self-interested corporate-- often multi-national corporate-- forces. Today's NY Times asserts that the banks tanked the economy. That may be true but isn't government supposed to protect society from powerful predators and punish the evildoers? I wish the YES that most people would answer that question with would lead to a Democratic sweep Tuesday, like it did in the somewhat similar 1934 midterms (after Roosevelt's initial election and 2 years of GOP obstructionism and right-wing fanatics screaming about socialism. But, even if all Republicans are evil corporate shills-- and they surely are-- these days not all Democrats fight against their corporate paymasters with requisite vigor. Some, including many who will be looking for new careers after Tuesday (think Blanche Lincoln and a pack of Blue Dogs), every bit as in the tank to the corporations and the wealthy as the Republicans are. As the Times points out, the International Monetary Fund found that the persistently high unemployment in the United States is largely the result of foreclosures and underwater mortgages, rather than widely cited causes like mismatches between job requirements and worker skills. The Republicans, Blue Dogs and other conservative Democrats have saved their efforts to fight to protect the evildoers rather than punish them or even stop their rampage against law and order.

Tomorrow night (Monday) Alan Grayson will be at a rally with three Democrats who are all better than Republicans, Bill NAFTA Clinton, Alex Sink and Kendrick Meek. Doors open at 9:15 at Lake Eola Park, 600 N. Robinson St. in Orlando. You can reserve tickets at http://www.alexsink2010.com/billclinton.

The Ohio Republican Nazi guy, Rich Iott, campaigned with his political benefactor yesterday, John Boehner. Embarrassed that Iott had gone on TV and admitted dressing up for years in an SS uniform and then defending it by telling a stunned Anderson Cooper than SS collaborators and volunteers were just "freedom fighters" (remember, right-wing "freedom," whether Republican or Nazi, is about the freedom of the wealthy and powerful to exploit the vulnerable without being hassled by countervailing forces), Boehner tried keeping the event closed to non-rightists. The closed-door appearance was at a call center in Lucas County-- although I'm surprised the GOP hasn't outsourced their call centers to India-- and the Toledo Blade captured the event on video. The would-be SS officer is on the left, beaming at the would-be Speaker (in the red jumper).

"I just ask you for three days for all of you to be 'all in' to make sure we bring home [John] Kasich [Republican candidate for governor] and [Rob] Portman [Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate], and the whole statewide ticket," Mr. Boehner said.

Prompted, he then added, "and Rich," in reference to Mr. Iott, who was standing near him.

Wisconsin has 6 large newspapers that, between them, cover the state. Most of them are pretty conservative and some have never endorsed Russ Feingold in the past. This year, with an actual agent of China and Wall Street running for the Wisconsin seat, all the papers endorsed Russ Feingold. The Oshkosh Northwestern isn't one of the state's bigger newspapers, although it is reliably conservative. It's also Ron Johnson's hometown paper. And it also endorsed Russ Feingold.

At a time when America needs intelligent, principled, grounded and inspiring leadership, voters should send Russ Feingold to the United States Senate to help lead us out of tough times dominated by angry and divisive politics. Feingold embodies the best qualities of Wisconsin we could hope to send to Washington to represent the best interests of our state and nation.

...Candidate Johnson has railed against government programs but businessman Johnson has enjoyed the benefits of those programs.

His answer to questions in the limited interviews and appearances he has made have shown a propensity for vague and scripted talking points that strike emotional chords without substance or thought. For instance, he refused to spell out in any detail what federal programs he would cut in an appearance at the Milwaukee Press Club in September in response to a question about the major theme of his campaign, smaller government.

"There's billions of dollars . . . that from my standpoint would be available for cutting. But I'm not going to get in the game here and, you know, start naming specific things to be attacked about, quite honestly," according to a news story in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. That is precisely the type of information voters should have to evaluate whether Johnson's choices line up with their own.

Johnson has simply not run a campaign that has made a compelling and substantive case to replace a senator as effective and well regarded as Russ Feingold. On Nov. 2, voters should return Feingold to the Senate.

The Final Thought: Sen. Russ Feingold is the most qualified candidate and should be re-elected.

Although DSCC chair and egregious Democratic corporate shill Robert Menendez very pointedly torpedoed her chances, one populist Democrat who never wavered a minute from fighting for ordinary working families is North Carolina Secretary of State Elaine Marshall. She's closing her campaign with the same feisty and incisive focus she started it with-- laser-beam attention to what really bothers ordinary North Carolina voters. “This election is about whether the middle class really survives or not,” she said. And that reminds me of a video you can't watch too many times-- one I really suggest you send to everyone you know tonight and tomorrow:



Or, if you don't like sending videos, think about sending Jed Lewison's post from Friday's Daily Kos, a post that many brainwashed voters will probably find challenges their preconceptions about the last few years. He asks 4 questions-- and answers them.

1. What was the average monthly private sector job growth in 2008, the final year of the Bush presidency, and what has it been so far in 2010?

2. What was the Federal deficit for the last fiscal year of the Bush presidency, and what was it for the first full fiscal year of the Obama presidency?

3. What was the stock market at on the last day of the Bush presidency? What is it at today?

4. Which party's candidate for speaker will campaign this weekend with a Nazi reenactor who dressed up in a SS uniform?

Answers:

1. In 2008, we lost an average of 317,250 private sector jobs per month. In 2010, we have gained an average of 95,888 private sector jobs per month. (Source) That's a difference of nearly five million jobs between Bush's last year in office and President Obama's second year.

2. In FY2009, which began on September 1, 2008 and represents the Bush Administration's final budget, the budget deficit was $1.416 trillion. In FY2010, the first budget of the Obama Administration, the budget deficit was $1.291 trillion, a decline of $125 billion. (Source) Yes, that means President Obama has cut the deficit-- there's a long way to go, but we're in better shape now than we were under Bush and the GOP.

3. On Bush's final day in office, the Dow, NASDAQ, and S&P 500 closed at 7,949, 1,440, and 805, respectively. Today, as of 10:15AM Pacific, they are at 11,108, 2,512, and 1,183. That means since President Obama took office, the Dow, NASDAQ, and S&P 500 have increased 40%, 74%, and 47%, respectively.

4. The Republican Party, whose candidate for speaker, John Boehner, will campaign with Nazi re-enactor Rich Iott this weekend. If you need an explanation why this is offensive, you are a lost cause.

Blue Dogism Slipping Under The Waves?

Yesterday I got a message from a friend in Ohio that that state's Democratic Party, headed by a sleazy and corrupt lobbyist and hack Chris Redfern-- whose heavy handed interference and mindboggling incompetence is virtually just handing the state back to the Republicans-- has removed the Coussoule campaign's access to the state's voter data base, the only way the Ohio Democratic Party has even remotely helped Coussoule's campaign. Redfern and his whole corrupt, conservative establishment is circling the toilet but he apparently thinks his lobbying business will benefit by his having helped John Boehner win another term and, perhaps, the Speakership.

In yesterday's Charlotte Observer, North Carolina's #1 newspaper, there was a glowing endorsement of Elaine Marshall's Senate scrappy insurgent campaign. The endorsement was a slap in the face not just to reactionary corporate shill and incumbent Richard Burr, but also to his pal, sleazy New Jersey ward-heeler and failed DSCC chair Robert Menendez. Marshall, they enthused, "dove into this year's Senate race without Democratic Party backing, yet beat the party's hand-picked choice in the primary. 'I don't have to vote with the Senate leadership,' she told us. 'I wasn't their pick'."

Not only was she not their pick, when North Carolina Democrats let Menendez know what he could do with his pick-- and handed the progressive, activist Marshall a decisive win against the corporate-oriented slug-- Menendez took his toys and ran back to Washington. He had forced Marshall to spend almost a million dollars to win a primary fight he insisted on-- even after she won the first round-- and since then has studiously, many would say vindictively, ignored North Carolina, easily the Democrats' best chance of picking up a GOP-held seat in the entire country.

From the time he handed Scott Brown Teddy Kennedy's Senate seat in Massachusetts, right through all his wrong-headed primary meddling, Menendez's place in history has been assured: the worst DSCC Chair ever. He has been the driving force in making John Cornyn look astute and in turning a filibuster-proof Democratic majority into a hodge podge that may or may not be able to cling to a bare majority. Out of touch, self-serving political hacks like Menendez and Redfern are managing to emphasize that the Democratic Party, despite the disciples of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt at the grassroots level is anything but a peoples' party.

Yesterday a friend of mine, Ari Berman, author of the brilliant new book, Herding Donkeys: The Fight to Rebuild the Democratic Party and Reshape American Politics, published an incisive OdEd in the NY Times about the damage Blue Dogs and ConservaDems have done to the Democratic Party and, thereby, to the one hope that working families have for a fair shake in this country. And it isn't only Blue Dogs and ConservaDems, but the political bosses like Redfern, Menendez and, of course, Rahm Emanuel, whose milieu they swim in.

Berman asks how Obama's breathtaking victory just two years ago could have turned to such bitter ashes today. "One important explanation," he begins, "is that divisions inside the Democratic coalition, which held together during the 2008 campaign, have come spilling out into the open. Conservative Democrats have opposed key elements of the president’s agenda, while liberal Democrats have howled that their majority is being hijacked by a rogue group of predominantly white men from small rural states. President Obama himself appears caught in the middle, unable to satisfy the many factions inside his party’s big tent." Even inside the DCCC, which should be theoretically controlled by Pelosi and her sluggish assistant, Chris Van Hollen, a rogue bunch of Emanuel leftovers, basically Jon Vogel and John Lapp-- each of whom has ownership stakes in outside consulting firms (which we'll be discussing at greater length on November 3)-- has taken it upon themselves, for curious reasons (more on... November 3), to bolster the campaigns of violently anti-Obama, anti-family reactionaries like Bobby Bright (see the Blue America response in the video above, which is running as an ad in the Democratic-leaning counties of his Alabama district), Travis Childers, Baron Hill, Ann Kirkpatrick, Harry Mitchell, Joe Donnelly, and Frank Kratovil, while ignoring not just progressive challengers, but even tried and true progressive incumbents like Alan Grayson, Raul Grijalva, Mary Jo Kilroy and Carol Shea Porter.

Conservative Democrats in the House of Representatives-- whose election in 2006 and 2008 enabled Nancy Pelosi to preside over a supermajority (there are 255 Democrats and 178 Republicans)-- increasingly question whether she should relinquish her position as speaker. Representative Heath Shuler of western North Carolina, a leader of the restive Blue Dog Coalition of Democrats, has even hinted that he may run for her job. Representative Shuler is an unlikely candidate for leader of the party-- a devout Southern Baptist who voted against the stimulus, the bank and auto bailouts and health care reform. Yet he’s exactly the kind of Democrat that the party worked very hard to recruit for public office.

In 2005, Howard Dean, who was then the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, carried out a campaign to elect as many Democrats as possible. In long-ignored red states, both Mr. Dean and Rahm Emanuel, then the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, backed conservative Democrats who broke with the party’s leadership on core issues like gun control and abortion rights. Mr. Shuler was one of Mr. Emanuel’s top recruits. The party leaders did not give much thought to how a Democratic majority that included such conservative members could ever effectively govern.

With President Obama in office, some notable beneficiaries of the Democrats’ 50-state strategy have been antagonizing the party from within-- causing legislative stalemate in Congress, especially in the Senate, and casting doubt on the long-term viability of a Democratic majority. As a result, the activists who were so inspired by Mr. Dean in 2006 and Mr. Obama in 2008 are now feeling buyer’s remorse.

Margaret Johnson, a former party chairwoman in Polk County, N.C., helped elect Representative Shuler but now believes the party would be better off without him. “I’d rather have a real Republican than a fake Democrat,” she said. “A real Republican motivates us to work. A fake Democrat de-motivates us.”

Ms. Johnson is right: Democrats would be in better shape, and would accomplish more, with a smaller and more ideologically cohesive caucus. It’s a sentiment that even Mr. Dean now echoes. “Having a big, open-tent Democratic Party is great, but not at the cost of getting nothing done,” he said. Since the passage of health care reform, few major bills have passed the Senate. Although the Democrats have a 59-vote majority, party leaders can barely find the votes for something as benign as extending unemployment benefits.
A smaller majority, minus the intraparty feuding, could benefit Democrats in two ways: first, it could enable them to devise cleaner pieces of legislation, without blatantly trading pork for votes as they did with the deals that helped sour the public on the health care bill. (As a corollary, the narrative of “Democratic infighting” would also diminish.)

Second, in the Senate, having a majority of 52 rather than 59 or 60 would force Democrats to confront the Republicans’ incessant misuse of the filibuster to require that any piece of legislation garner a minimum of 60 votes to become law. Since President Obama’s election, more than 420 bills have cleared the House but have sat dormant in the Senate. It’s easy to forget that George W. Bush passed his controversial 2003 tax cut legislation with only 50 votes, plus Vice President Dick Cheney’s. Eternal gridlock is not inevitable unless Democrats allow it to be.

Republicans have become obsessed with ideological purity, and as a consequence they will likely squander a few winnable races in places like Delaware. But Democrats aren’t ideological enough. Their conservative contingent has so blurred what it means to be a Democrat that the party itself can barely find its way. Polls show that, despite their best efforts to distance themselves from Speaker Pelosi and President Obama, a number of Blue Dog Democrats are likely to be defeated this November. Their conservative voting records have deflated Democratic activists but have done nothing to win Republican support.

Far from hastening the dawn of a post-partisan utopia, President Obama’s election has led to near-absolute polarization. If Democrats alter their political strategy accordingly, they’ll be more united and more productive.

Although he was asked, for the sake of some semblance of party unity, to back off, what Berman is saying is very much what the dean of California's congressional delegation said this summer: the Democrats would be better off without the Blue Dogs.

“I think a lot of the House seats we’re going to lose are those who have been the toughest for the Democrats to pull into line-- the Democrats that have been the most difficult,” Waxman said.

Waxman, one of the Democratic Party’s stalwarts, is simply voicing publicly what many in his party have said privately as the reality of the looming November elections sets in. If Democrats retain a majority, it will be smaller but more cohesive.

 As Waxman sees it, the fractious coalition of Democrats that House leaders have cobbled together to pass sweeping healthcare and energy bills is not markedly different from the bipartisanship of the past, when Democrats partnered with centrist and liberal Republicans, whom Waxman says are “practically nonexistent at the moment.”

 “We’ve been trying to get the Democratic conservatives together with the rest of the Democratic Party, so in effect we’ve gotten bipartisan support among Democrats in the House,” the chairman said with a laugh. “Now we’ll have to work on genuine bipartisanship in the future.”

The Bobby Bright Blue America ads were paid for with a single contribution from a dedicated progressive who feels much the same way about this that Henry Waxman and Ari Berman feel. But if you'd like to chip in a little to hammer home the message... here's The Bobby Bright Page on ActBlue.


UPDATE: And Don't Forget The New Dem Coalition

They're a couple steps further away from the white sheets and hoods than the Blue Dogs, with this group of conservative Democrats has been nearly as lethal, especially when it comes to protecting their corporate benefactors. Sebastian Jones and Marcus Stern blew the whistle on these bad dogs at ProPublica today. Usually the ugly public faces of the New Dems have been Illinois corporate whores Rahm Emanuel and Melissa Bean but right now the chairman of the corporate Wall Street bagmen is Joseph Crowley, whose under investigation for collecting bribery checks. A congressional friend of mine told me the Democratic Caucus has decided to elevate him in the leadership-- and probably not in spite of all the bribes he takes but because of them! After all, they reason, how can the Democrats fight Boehner, Cantor, Ryan and that lot without people just an unsavory and criminally-minded?

In a review of data collected by the nonprofit Sunlight Foundation, ProPublica found that at least 16 other New Democrats also held fundraisers in the days leading up to the December vote on Wall Street reform. Several explicitly mentioned their membership in the New Democrat Coalition or their seat on the Financial Services Committee on invitations distributed to lobbyists.

Throughout their rise to power, the New Democrats have maintained that their pro-business positions are based not on the campaign contributions they receive but on their personal convictions, their experiences in the private sector, and on the politics of the affluent suburban districts many of them represent.

Staffers for the New Democrat Coalition refused to answer questions on the record, but the group's spokesperson, Natalie Thorpe, read a one-sentence statement over the phone: "The fundraising activities of the NewDemPAC are completely separate from the New Democrat Coalition and have no effect on the official work of the coalition or the positions taken by our members."

...The Blue Dogs took the lead in protecting business interests during healthcare reform. Although the Blue Dogs and the New Democrats have much in common, including 21 members and many of the same K Street backers, there are differences as well. Because of their generally Southern and rural constituencies, the Blue Dogs’ top concerns involve the national debt, energy legislation and social issues. The New Democrats represent suburban districts, some of them solidly Democratic, and are more interested in hi-tech industries, trade policy and finance.

Bush's Greatest Regret-- Progressives' Most Solemn Pledge

Now you could probably rattle off a dozen of Bush's worst blunders and most tragic errors with your eyes closed, right? And I bet one of them wouldn't be his failure, despite gigantic efforts, to privatize Social Security. But speaking to a roomful of bankers and financial lobbyists in Chicago yesterday, Bush said his greatest regret was not having been able to do what Republicans have tried for 75 years: dismantle Social Security. Not to worry, of course, the surging GOP is vowing to try again if they're able to seize power on November 2. And our spine-deficient president is probably frothing at the mouth for some nice bipartisanship on this, especially with the Republican he loves most, Paul Ryan, leading the way.

As we saw the other day, 136 progressives, following the lead of Raúl Grijalva, sent Obama a letter telling him they will not go along with Republican plans to balance the budget on the backs of senior citizens. They served notice to the Republicans and to Obama that if they cobble together a coalition of the Republicans and the conservative Democrats (Blue Dogs in the House and ConservaDems in the Senate), there are enough real Democrats to give them the fight of a lifetime. 

It's a fight Boehner very much wants to fight, and-- unless Justin Coussoule knocks him off in his own Ohio district-- we have to pray that electorally vulnerable stalwart progressives like Alan Grayson, John Hall, Mary Jo Kilroy, Carol Shea-Porter, Raúl Grijalva and Betty Sutton keep their seats. Even if, as looks likely, the Democrats lose as many as two dozen Blue Dogs and fellow travelers (like Suzanne Kosmas and Ann Kirkpatrick), as long as the progressives hold on, Nancy Pelosi will remain Speaker. And, regardless of what kinds of bipartisan compromise Obama works out with Boehner and Ryan and, if he should not be swept away with the rest of the garbage, anti-Social Security Blue Dog Allen Boyd, Pelosi will be a bulwark against any damage to Social Security under any circumstances. She even addressed Bush's stupid Chicago comments on her blog yesterday.

Out plugging his new book, former President George W. Bush today lamented losing his 2005 attempt to privatize Social Security... Just imagine if the Bush-GOP effort to turn Social Security over to the whims of Wall Street had succeeded. When seniors saw trillions of dollars of their own investments wiped out in the Bush financial meltdown on Wall Street, they also would have seen sharp losses in Social Security benefits.

...Three new studies were released examining the impact of the current Ryan/Republican Social Security privatization plans. All three reports find the GOP’s plans to privatize Social Security and turn it over to the whims of Wall Street would cut Social Security benefits for seniors. From the Wall Street Journal article, Social Security Study Finds GOP Plans Would Bring Big Cuts:

Republican proposals to overhaul Social Security would substantially reduce future benefits for people now entering the workforce, according to a new analysis from Social Security Administration’s chief actuary.

…“The new analysis reveals that these proposals result in benefits cuts ranging from 10% to as high as 50%,” said Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D., N.D.), one of the Democrats who requested the study. “That’s not what I’d call ’saving’ Social Security.”

…A worker born in 1985 whose earnings averaged $43,000 would receive 17% less at retirement than current law promises, as a result of Mr. Ryan’s proposal to change the inflation index. His proposed increase in the retirement age would reduce benefits by another 8%, according to the actuary’s analysis.

It is without question that privatizing Social Security and turning it over to Wall Street is very much part of the Congressional Republican agenda, backed by unprecedented amounts of secret money from shadowy special interests.

Last night progressive champion Elaine Marshall, North Carolina's fighting Secretary of State, duked it out with reactionary anti-family radical Richard Burr in the campaign's last debate. Burr, a Wall Street puppet and Chamber of Commerce shill, is one of the most eager of all the right-wing extremists to gut Social Security. He tries buying off seniors by saying it won't affect them, just future generations. He soft-pedaled it during the debates, of course, but he blames Social Security-- rather than bloated military budgets, corporate welfare or billions annually in tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans-- for the deficit and has said over and over again that the retirement age should be raised and that there shouldn't be cost of living allowances that permit seniors' buying power to keep pace with inflation. 

In August, at a candidates' forum, Burr blurted out, "We gotta raise the retirement age… I think we’re gonna have to look at Social Security recipients above a certain income threshold and say ‘you’re above that threshold, you don’t get a cost of living increase.’ And that's all in an effort to try to get a glide path that's manageable in an entitlement program.” And as much as he struggles to obscure his record just before election time, Burr supported Bush’s plan to privatize Social Security during the 2004 campaign. In 2004, the Charlotte Observer reported that Burr “supports President Bush's proposal to allow younger workers to fund voluntary personal savings accounts with money that now goes to their payroll taxes.” 

In fact, Burr told the Winston-Salem Journal in March 2005 that he was "amazed" that some people opposed privatizing Social Security along the lines Bush was trying to drag the country to. Two years later he voted for an amendment by his guru Jim DeMint to set up personal investment accounts under Social Security, the first step toward dismantling the program. The only other senators facing reelection November 2 who also voted to destroy Social Security are Tom Coburn (R-OK), DeMint, of course, Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), John McCain (R-AZ), Lisa Murkowsky (R-AK), John Thune (R-SD) and, of course, unrehabilitated sex predator David Vitter (R-LA).

Of course, Elaine Marshall isn't the only progressive Democrat standing up for working families and fighting back against this reactionary crap. She's on our short list of Senate challengers because she does it so well. Over on the House side, all of the Blue America-endorsed candidates have pledged to fight against any and all attempts to disadvantage Social Security, whether that comes from the Republicans or from Obama's Cat Food Commission. Yesterday Bill Hedrick (D-CA) was touring Riverside and Orange counties with DFA Chairman Jim Dean and once again publicly pledged to fight any attempts to privatize Social Security and called on Congress to keep its "hands off" the successful program. "Social Security isn't some sort of lab specimen for career politicians in Washington to experiment with," he said. “My opponent voted to implement President Bush's privatization plan, but I stand with the people in telling Congress and Ken Calvert to keep their hands off Social Security."

Hedrick was referring to a vote on July 25, 2001, on an amendment offered by Bob Filner to prohibit funds for the purpose of implementing the final report of Bush's anti-Social Security Commission. Calvert voted NO, in effect voting to advance the implementation of a Social Security privatization plan developed by Bush. The commission was criticized for being stacked with pro-privatization members, even worse than Obama's, and the plan was never implemented.

"When you're Ken Calvert, profiting hundreds of thousands of dollars on land deals subsidized by taxpayer-funded earmarks, then of course you will never realize how important Social Security is to the nearly 90,000 people in our district who rely on it," Hedrick said.

The Inside-The-Beltway Democrats Are Missing Two Winnable Races In North Carolina

There was an outstanding line in yesterday's fiery endorsement of Elaine Marshall in the Raleigh News & Observer. The Senate, the editorial explained, "could use someone who has never lost touch with ordinary working people and their worries." We agree, and we were enthusiastic about adding Elaine Marshall to our ActBlue Senate candidates list. Please consider making a contribution to her campaign.

Sleazy New Jersey ward boss and DSCC Chair Robert Menendez-- easily the most incompetent loser to ever head a national party committee-- is determined to prove he was right about Marshall, despite what North Carolina voters think. Menendez, an anti-Cuba fanatic as bad as any neo-fascist Republican Cuba-hater, was determined to block Marshall's bid to win the North Carolina Senate seat occupied by his anti-Cuba ally Richard Burr. Menendez recruited a reluctant nebbish and empty suit, Cal Cunningham, to run against Marshall in the primary. Cunningham made little headway but managed to drain over a million dollars out of Marshall's campaign, precisely what Menendez planned from the beginning. Needless to say, the DSCC hasn't spent a nickel in North Carolina, lavishing nearly $2 million on a campaign in West Virginia that seems to be about who hates Obama and the principles and agenda of the Democratic Party more, Menendez candidate Joe Manchin or GOP sociopath John Raese. Both candidates solemnly swear to vote against the Democratic agenda-- so of course Menendez is using Manchin's race as an excuse for not helping Elaine Marshall, a proven progressive fighter for the working families who have been the bedrock of the Democratic Party.

Burr & Menendez-- a match made in Hell

I sure hope Democratic senators who made the awful, if not fatal, mistake of trusting the execrable Menendez with the chairmanship of their election committee take a look at the News & Observer editorial. It isn't something a corrupt, sordid political hack like Menendez could ever hope to understand.

She grew up as a farm girl from Maryland who knew how to drive a tractor before she was a teenager, and who has slopped her share of hogs. She has cleaned a chicken house or two in her time. She has run a decorating and book business in a small town and struggled to keep them going. She has been divorced and twice widowed. She went back to law school later in life. She got into politics in Harnett County and won local and statewide office from the ground up.

Elaine Marshall's life is in many ways a mirror, many mirrors, of the lives of the people of North Carolina. It is a life marked if not defined by adversity. But it has been adversity overcome, and it's no overstatement to say that it very well could be a life inspiring to others.

Now Marshall, North Carolina's Democratic secretary of state, faces another big challenge, one that few "professional" observers think she has a chance of overcoming, and that is a bid to become one of North Carolina's two U.S. senators. She has the News & Observer's editorial endorsement for the office.

Her campaign for the Senate is based on her long-standing public profile as secretary of state, an office to which she was first elected in 1996, defeating the king of racing, Richard Petty. At that time, Marshall was the first woman elected to a statewide executive job in North Carolina. She's done some creative things with her office, making it more aggressive, for example, in the regulation of lobbying.

Her campaign is running practically on a shoestring, which no doubt delights special interests who fear they wouldn't get Marshall to do their bidding-- for example, on weakening a regulation here and there.

And that's just fine with Robert Menendez, who comes from the same mindset as Burr and the Republicans when it comes to the role of corrupt corporate cash in the electoral system. That, after all, is what he owes his own rise to power to. The editorial goes on to point out that the special interests who oppose Marshall are overjoyed at the thought of another six-year term for hopeless Wall Street shill Burr, one of the Republicans who never want to talk about their votes for Bush's no-strings-attached Wall Street TARP bailout in 2008, something Marshall opposed at the time.

Burr's sizable campaign treasury ($9 million at one point) included gifts from those connected to health care and drug companies, Wall Street and a host of others with an intense interest in seeing to it that the government does not get too far into their business. Burr can be relied upon to give regulation the stiff arm just as he did would-be tacklers when he played football in high school and college.

...Burr's votes reflect the senator he has been and his philosophy: He opposed health care reform and says he wants to repeal it. He voted against extending a children's health care program to be funded by a tobacco tax. He opposed an extension of unemployment benefits.

...Elaine Marshall's view of government is that it should serve the many, not the few, whether that means helping to shore up the economy and create jobs, protecting the sick from losing health insurance or ensuring that the predators of Wall Street are brought to justice. What a people's senator she would be.

Northwest North Carolina is the part of the state that gave us Burr. Once he ascended to the Senate, he was replaced-- in a fluke accident-- by notorious hate merchant Virginia Foxx. Last week we looked at North Carolina's other "impossible" race: Billy Kennedy's go at the seat Foxx is occupying-- and how it is looking more and more possible. The Winston-Salem Journal endorsement of Kennedy against Foxx was devastating to her, since she's always had the support of the district's biggest newspaper in the past. Last weekend, reading the first lines of the searing indictment against her must have driven her batshit crazy: "U.S. Rep. Virginia Foxx, a Republican from Watauga County, has not achieved any great accomplishments for the residents of the 5th Congressional District, and has angered and embarrassed many with her sometimes wild statements that seem designed to provoke. It’s time for a fresh, progressive voice in the 5th District. We believe that Democrat Billy Kennedy, a Watauga farmer and carpenter who says he’ll work to reverse the high rate of unemployment in the district, is that voice. He’s the best candidate in the Nov. 2 election for the 5th District." It got worse.

The DCCC has refused to recognize that there even is a race going on in NC-5. They haven't even given Billy Kennedy the kind of lip-service they give the Red to Blue candidates like Ami Bera (CA), Steve Pougnet (CA), Ann Kuster (NH), Joyce Elliott (AR), John Callahan (PA), Manan Trevedi (PA), Tarryl Clark (MN), Tommy Sowers (MO) and Suzane DelBene (WA). This year, if you're not frothing at the mouth and barking epithets against Obama and Pelosi-- and if you're not coated in mangy blue fur-- the DCCC has nothing for you.

And despite the similarity in some respects, Foxx is no Bachmann. A Fox TV favorite, Bachmann has raised over $10 million. Foxx, despite voting virtually exactly the same as Bachmann for the past four years, has managed to suck in only $789,390. (She does have $1,262,346 in cash on hand, left over from the DCCC's not challenging her in past years.) Billy has taken in $158,017, almost exclusively from small grassroots contributions, and had just $70,406 in cash on hand as of June 30.

In 2008 Foxx took 58% of the vote while the district was giving McCain 61%. Winston-Salem's WXII News 12 described the Blue America ad we did on behalf of Kennedy as "one of the best political ads this year." It won our on-line contest for who the Blue America blog readers wanted us to target. (Yes, Foxx even beat crackpots Michele Bachmann and Steve King.) But we didn't have much money to run it fully. So we ran it in the populous suburbs around Winston-Salem, and Foxx did the rest for us by calling attention to the ad. We'd like to run it again between now and the election. Please take a look at the whole ad and consider making a contribution here. Look how close we are to being able to get it up on the air. And look how the biggest news show in the district used it on Friday.

Steny Hoyer Leads House Democrats Down The Toilet-- Blocks Bid To Vote On Middle Class Tax Cuts

With polls showing overwhelming support for extending the Bush-era tax cuts for the middle class, while ending them for the wealthy, progressive Members of the House were eager to go into the election with a vote on the issue. Ironically, so were Republicans, who wanted to once again show their fealty to the rich in the Class War they are waging against ordinary American families. The Senate's vote on Tuesday showing which senators support outsourcing and off-shoring American jobs and which senators oppose it was helpful. That conservatives filibustered that bill to death will prove helpful to Democratic incumbents as well as Democratic challengers. Both Kentucky GOP senators, retiring Jim Bunning and Miss McConnell (who was just pushed aside by Jim DeMint as de facto leader of the Republican caucus), voted to continue the filibuster, which is also strongly supported by the Republican extremist running for Bunning's open seat, Rand Paul. Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, the Democrat running for that seat, has made ending off-shoring U.S. jobs a major part of his election platform, immediately came out swinging on behalf of the thousands of Kentucky workers who have lost good jobs to outsourcing schemes. "Rand Paul," he told us right after the vote, "wants tax breaks for companies that ship jobs from Kentucky overseas. I believe that's wrong, and I'll work to create jobs in Kentucky, not overseas."

North Carolina's Secretary of State, Elaine Marshall, a candidate for the seat currently occupied by reactionary corporate shill Richard Burr, had the same reaction as Conway. "Richard Burr is still confused," she told us an hour after he voted in favor of outsourcing. "The jobs bill he supports creates jobs in China. He consistently opposes efforts to put Americans back to work."

[This might be a good time to remind anyone interested that Blue America has a special page for the best Senate challengers this year and, needless to say, both Jack Conway and Elaine Marshall are on that page. If you'd like to contribute to either of their campaigns, you can do so right here.]

It was smart of Reid to schedule the vote that helps Americans understand the difference between conservatives and progressives, between senators who are working for Big Business and senators who are working for the well-being of ordinary families, workers and consumers. Steny Hoyer, is no one's dummy, but he's very conflicted because his rise to power was underwritten by the same Special Interests who have helped corrupt Republicans like Boehner, Cantor, Ryan and Pence. And that explains why the House did not vote on the legislation to give tax breaks to the middle class, a vote that was sure to help most Democrats, though could hurt a handful of Blue Dog incumbents who take their cues from Boehner and would have voted against middle class tax cuts.

The White House wants Congress to make the tax cuts permanent for individuals earning less than $200,000 annually and married couples with incomes below $250,000. But Republicans and many centrist Democrats want to extend the cuts for all income groups at least for a year or two.

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner , R-Ohio, said Wednesday, “I believe there’s a bipartisan majority in both the House and Senate, who want to extend all of the current tax rates. If the Democrat leaders leave town, without stopping these tax increases, they are turning their backs on the American people.”

Boehner brushed aside questions about why Republicans don’t try to force a floor vote through a discharge petition, saying that rarely used procedure would take too long. “As you know, a discharge petition has to sit around for 30 legislative days. And I don’t think the American people want to wait that long. The reason they are not bringing this up is because we have the votes in the House and Senate to extend all of the current tax rates,” Boehner said.

He added, “It’s irresponsible for them to leave town without giving us a fair up or down vote... This is no way to run the people’s House.”

Hoyer and his faction managed to play right into Republican hands, taking away the Democrats' best issue for the midterms while somehow making the Republicans look vaguely plausible. Sometimes I wonder if Hoyer isn't doing this more than design and not just because of incompetence. It's a shame Rahm can't take his former junior partner with him to Chicago when he oozes his way out of Washington.

Paul Hodes Voted Against The No-Strings-Attached Bush Wall Street Bailout That Judd Gregg Helped Push Through The Senate

Before she ruined it by declaring her fealty to Wall Street, backing more tax breaks for millionaires, Missouri Democrat Robin Carnahan mounted a beautiful attack on corrupt GOP hack Roy Blunt, the Architect of the TARP Bailout. Carnahan wasn't in Congress late in 2008 when the Bush Administration stampeded most Members of Congress to vote for a multibillion dollar no-strings-attached Wall Street bailout. They used the shock doctrine and persuaded most of them that if the bailout didn't go forward the whole worldwide financial system would fall apart. Most Senate Republicans-- 34 of them, in fact-- voted for the bailout, including such "conservative" stalwarts Richard Burr (R-NC), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), John Cornyn (R-TX), John McCain (R-AZ), John Kyl (R-AZ), John Thune (R-SD), Miss McConnell (R-KY), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)... while true blue progressives like Russ Feingold (D-WI), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Jon Tester (D-MT), Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) voted NO and warned about the consequences of giving the band of crooks around Bush and on Wall Street-- as though there was a distinction-- so much unregulated access to taxpayer money.

The bill failed in the House but a week later Republican leaders John Boehner, Roy Blunt, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, David Dreier, etc forced enough Republicans to switch their votes to pass the most wasteful and ill-conceived bailout in history. As I mentioned above, North Carolina "conservative"-- if "conservative means you take massive bribes from Wall Street and Big Business and then just let them decide how you're voting-- Richard Burr was an avid bailout supporter. Tom Jensen at Public Policy Polling thinks that's part of why Burr could turn out to be the one Republican Senate incumbent to lose his seat in November.

58% of voters said they were less likely to vote for someone who had supported the bailout to only 25% who said more likely.

The big question now is whether Democrats can take advantage of these unpopular votes. There are three main places I can see it helping:

-The Undecideds. In the Missouri race 74% of undecideds said a candidate supporting the bailout would have a negative impact on their vote to only 6% positive. It's a similar story in North Carolina where 57% of the undecideds say less likely to only 20% more likely. If Blunt and Burr can be turned into the bailout candidates in those races it may help bring the folks who haven't made up their minds yet into the Democratic column.

-Make Republicans Depressed. The most interesting thing about the bailout numbers in Missouri and North Carolina is the voters who react most negatively to it are the ones supporting Blunt and Burr who supported it in Congress. Among Blunt voters 88% are less likely to vote for someone who voted for the bailout to 5% more likely and among Burr voters it's 85% less likely and 7% more likely. I don't know how many of those voters can be converted into the Democratic column but relentless attack on the issue could leave GOP voters unhappy with their candidates and staying home, which might help with the Democrats' enthusiasm gap issues.

-Flip Independents. One of Robin Carnahan and Elaine Marshall's common problems is a deficit with independents. Carnahan trails Blunt by 5 with them while Marshall is down 19. But those same voters react extremely negatively to the bailout- 19/66 in North Carolina and 25/61 in Missouri. If Carnahan and Marshall can convince independent voters, who are madder at the system than anyone, that they are the alternatives to business as usual in Washington it could go a long way.

Though they are both on record opposing any no-strings-attached bailouts and are clear that they would not have voted for them, both Carnahan and Marshall are Secretaries of State and neither had to cast a vote. Paul Hodes, who's running for the open Senate seat in New Hampshire, however, was in Congress-- and he did vote-- twice. And despite pressure to do otherwise, Hodes voted against the bailout twice. The reason the seat is now open is because New Hampshire's senior senator, Republican Judd Gregg is retiring rather than face an angry electorate-- angry because he voted for the bailout. In New Hampshire, voters can either listen to the yowlings of Republican activists hopped up on Fox News who claim Paul Hodes is... [fill in the blank, since they're trying anything and everything], or they can look at his voting record. Unlike scores of so-called conservative Republicans, Hodes voted NO on the bailout and was one of the leaders in Congress against earmarks and one of the leaders in the battle to end all tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs overseas. His first TV ad of the season makes the point (and he wrote and performed the music):



UPDATE: Meanwhile Republicans Continue To Tear Each Other Apart With Negative Campaigning

One radical right kook goes after another, more corrupt, radical right kook:

To Republicans, Closing Foreign Tax Loopholes And Keeping 100,000 Teachers Working Amounts To "Job Killing Legislation" For "Special Interests"

A couple days ago, a congressional friend of Blue America's called from his home and told me he's getting a great deal accomplished on the break in terms of getting out and meeting his constituents and organizing his staff for a tough reelection battle. He also told me he's a rare exception and that most Members of Congress-- both parties-- split their summer vacation time between selling their asses to corporate special interests and just shutting down entirely and forgetting about the miseries of Washington (including even reelection). When I saw John Boehner's tweet (above) late yesterday-- responding to Speaker Pelosi ordering the House back in session to deal urgently with saving teachers' jobs... stuff Boehner and the GOP think of as "special interests"-- I thought of the contrast with the tweet he was responding to:


Boehner rose to political power selling his ass to the highest corporate bidders and if he's most famous for handing out tobacco lobbyists' checks (bribe money, as many Republicans confirmed when Boehner was caught) on the House floor, he certainly hasn't been ignored by the Finance Sector ($3,612,064), the Medical Giants ($1,473,347), or the Insurance Industry ($1,000,996). Lobbyists have directly given him-- apart from what they donate to his shady leadership PAC-- almost 300 grand.



So I don't know if Boehner was pissed off because he wanted to spend the break filling his coffers with more corporate cash or because he was eager to raise the numbers of days on the links from 119 in 2009 to 129 in 2010. But once Collins and Snowe did all they could to weaken the $26.1 billion bill-- cutting the food stamp program by $11.9 billion starting in 2014-- and agreed to help fund education and healthcare assistance to the overburdened states and then crossed the aisle to vote to shut down the GOP filibuster, it was almost inevitable that Pelosi would recall the House to give final approval so it could go to the president and he could sign it. Over 100,000 teaching jobs are a stake (unlike Big Tobacco or Wall Street, a "special interest" for John Boehner and his caucus). Here's the announcement Pelosi had Hoyer make yesterday and what sent Boehner off into a twittery rage:

Next week, the House will return to session to vote to keep teachers on the job and provide assistance to states to ensure health services continue for those in need. Both of those provisions have already passed the House twice, and now that the Senate is moving forward to pass this critical aid, I look forward to bringing it to the House Floor for a vote. 

The House will meet in pro forma session on Monday, and will be in at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday to vote on the bill and send it to the President for his signature.

Boehner's official website went on the attack and I figured I'd reproduce it here in case he comes to his senses and decides to remove it when he realizes how heartless it makes him and his party look:

“The American people don’t want more Washington ‘stimulus’ spending-- especially in the form of a pay-off to union bosses and liberal special interests. This stunning display of tone-deafness comes at the expense of American workers, who will be hit by another job-killing tax hike because Washington Democrats can’t kick their addiction to more government ‘stimulus’ spending. Democrats should be listening to their constituents-- who are asking ‘where are the jobs?’-- instead of scampering back to Washington to push through more special interest bailouts and job-killing tax hikes.

“The best way to address the challenges our cities and states are facing is to get our economy back on track, not kick the can down the road and double down on the same failing policies. Republicans are listening to the American people and offering better solutions to cut wasteful Washington spending and help small businesses put people back to work.

“Next week, the House will also consider Rep. Tom Price’s privileged resolution regarding Democrats’ plans to pass controversial job-killing legislation during a lame-duck session. This will be yet another opportunity for Democrats to promise to respect the will of the American people, or stick with their liberal Leaders’ desire to not ‘rule out’ passing a national energy tax or massive spending bills in a lame duck.”

As you know, the Party of Hypocrisy, doesn't believe in doing anything important during a lame-duck session-- just little inconsequential things like when Boehner helped railroad through some fatuous impeachment articles through against President Clinton, articles that were rejected by the Senate. But of course the Republicans are resisting coming back to Washington to pass this legislation. It helps the country recover and it helps average American families, anathema to the GOP. North Carolina Secretary of State Elaine Marshall phrased it well yesterday when Richard Burr voted with the other Republicans in opposition to the legislation:

Senator Burr voted against bipartisan legislation Wednesday that closes foreign tax loopholes and protects the jobs of over 4,500 teachers in North Carolina and 140,000 teachers nationwide. The cost of the bill is completely offset by closing foreign tax loopholes and by spending cuts in other areas. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said today that the legislation would actually decrease the deficit. Republican and Democratic Governors across the country support the bill, but Senate Republicans opposed the measure, not wanting to give Democrats a legislative victory...

After 16 years in Washington, Senator Burr just doesn’t get it. North Carolina families are getting hit on all sides, but he still thinks he represents the powerful interests who fund his campaigns instead of the people of our state. Now, he's standing up for corporate tax loopholes when he should be keeping teachers in the classroom.

UPDATE: And Take THAT, you... you... you... Boehner!



See what it says there: "Records show that Mr. Boehner took 180 trips to destinations outside his southwest Ohio district from 1999 to 2005. Most of them were to exclusive golf resorts, including-- yes-- St. Andrews, Pebble Beach in California, and Pinehurst in North Carolina. While golfers are plentiful among the denizens of Capitol Hill, the group pointed out that these junkets exceeded the 149 plane trips the congressman made at taxpayer expense between Washington, D.C., and home during the same time span... Aides to Mr. Boehner... did not dispute the statistics."

So their disputations this week are, like... pretty funny.


UPDATE: Big Ed Liked Our Billboard Campaign-- And We Liked His Framing!

Senate GOP Strikes A Major Blow Against Small Businesses While House Continues To Try To Clean Up Bush/Republican Economic Mess

Early yesterday every single Republican senator-- including the 3 from New England who the mainstream media has gotten into the habit of calling "moderates"-- joined a filibuster of the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act. Their congressional caucuses are doubling down on their strategy of destroying the economy from the inside. They are in ritual opposition to every attempt Obama makes to clean up the mess that decades of conservative misgovernance have left us with. The bill-- Barney Frank's H.R. 5297-- passed 241-282 in the House on June 17. When she found out that Burr was one of the Republicans filibustering the desperately needed bill. North Carolina Secretary of State Elaine Marshall issued this statement:

After 16 years in Washington, Senator Richard Burr still needs to get his priorities straight. People are losing jobs, businesses are struggling and he's playing politics. If he's not willing to give small businesses the support they need to create jobs, it's time for him to give up his.

She pointed out that several Republican lawmakers helped write the bipartisan bill, which was backed by traditional Republican Party allies like the National Federation of Independent Business and even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Republicans complain that the legislation-- which eliminates capital gains taxes for investment in small firms, creates a Small Business Lending Fund to underwrite loans through community banks, and creates a credit initiative for small business to help meet state budget shortfalls-- gives too much money to family farmers. And they're also angry because they haven't been allowed to present a bunch of partisan, election year amendments. I see Reid voted NO, which means he intends to bring it up again so, presumably, he'll let the nasty little children get some time to grandstand on a bunch of amendments that have no chance of passing.

So while Republicans were running their games in the Senate, Barney Frank's House Financial Services Committee voted to approve the Shareholder Protection Act, which will require corporations to receive permission from a majority of shareholders before spending money on political campaigns, and will require all large election-related expenditures to be disclosed to shareholders and the public. No doubt the Senate Republicans will be eager to filibuster this one as well. Michael Keegan, president of People For the American Way explained why this bill should not be filibustered and why it's so crucial that Congress enact it and the President sign it:

“In approving the Shareholder Protection Act, the House Financial Services Committee has taken an important step towards making corporations accountable to their shareholders and our government accountable to its voters. The Citizens United decision handed corporations the power to use unlimited amounts of money from their treasuries to influence elections-- without so much as checking with individual shareholders before spending their money, or telling them that they have done so.
 
“The only way to truly undo the damage of Citizens United is to pass a Constitutional Amendment reversing it. But until then, voters at least deserve to know which corporations are attempting to influence elections and shareholders deserve to know which elections their money is influencing. Yesterday, the Senate GOP united against the DISCLOSE Act, another measure to ensure transparency in corporate political activity. This time, I hope that the GOP will choose to listen to voters, rather than kowtowing to corporate interests.”

And speaking of stocks, there's an interesting teachable moment working itself out in the Wisconsin Senate race, pitting iconoclast and reformer Russ Feingold against shady GOP multimillionaire Ron Johnson. Johnson has been pushing a Big Oil agenda-- a bailout for B.P., drilling in the Great Lakes, more tax breaks and special treatment for Big Oil and big polluters-- and the it turns out that he owns a small fortune in B.P. stock, something he hadn't disclosed when he was pushing their case, a case that would make him even richer. Even as dense an Insider as Chris Matthews saw through Johnson's serial flip flopping on this major conflict of interest:

Multimillionaire Ron Johnson reversed himself again Monday, saying he now wasn’t certain whether he would sell his BP stock, after previously telling supporters and the media that he planned to sell the stock “to help pay for his campaign.” The initial flip-flop came after Johnson’s campaign initially said he would keep the stock.
 
Johnson also opposes the BP compensation fund for the victims of the Gulf oil spill-- calling it “Bad for America.”  As reported by the Capital Times: "Johnson climbed in bed with BP. The wealthy candidate derided the Obama administration's efforts to get money to pay for claims that are all but certain to exceed $20 billion ‘very troubling.’"
 
“Ron Johnson is misleading voters with his intentions. First he was going to keep the stock, then he decided to sell, now he's waiting for the right moment so he can turn a buck to fund his campaign. It appears the only thing Johnson is consistent on is changing his position,” said Mike Tate, Chair of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin. ”Wisconsin voters deserve better than a walking special interest whose positions on the issues shift depending on what his stock portfolio is doing. It’s time for Ron Johnson to stop playing games and sell the BP stock he hid from the public-- and give the money to support the BP Victims' Compensation Fund.”

But it turns out Russ Feingold has stock too-- and backs the company he has the stock in! Is he as corrupt and sleazy as Johnson. Uhhh... no. According to Wednesday's Market Place Magazine, Feingold pressed the FCC to “make it easier for residents living in northern and western Wisconsin to receive Wisconsin-related television programming, including in-state news, weather, sports and entertainment”-- including Green Bay Packer games. And he owns stock in the Packers! Unfortunately," said Feingold Thursday, "I will be unable to attend today's Green Bay Packers annual shareholder meeting. However, I want to make it clear that I will not be divesting my one share in the Packers. Not because it's the only stock I own, or because market conditions predict a Super Bowl, but because I am a committed Packer fan whether they are up or down."

All kidding aside, Big Business, lead by the far right Chamber of Commerce, is making a concerted effort this year to help the Republicans win back both houses of Congress. And they are pouring tens of millions of dollars into defeating Democrats, especially non-Blue Dog type Democrats.

The latest blatant signs of hostility come from coal executives who are considering starting up their own political operation to work against candidates they deem unfriendly to their interests. Their first three targets are all Democrats [Ben Chandler, Nick Rahill and Jack Conway].

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has already vowed to invest $75 million in the mid-term elections. And health insurers are also planning to play big in November, although the specifics remain in flux. Both groups are hedging their bets by aligning themselves with some moderate or conservative Democrats in case Republicans don't win control of Congress.

UPDATE: That Was Fast... Small Business Bill Passes

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it looks like late yesterday Reid called the Senate back into session and they voted on the Small Business bill again and... it passed 70-23, only a handful of freaks and America-haters like DeMint, McCain, Cornyn and Vitter voting NO.

Obama Wants Americans To Tell The GOP To Stop Sabotaging The Economy

We've been covering Congress' reluctance to extend unemployment insurance to millions of American families with a great deal of concern. Conservatives hate the idea of society coming together to help the needy-- even when the need, as in this case, are victims of bad government decisions, like wholesale (Law of the Jungle) deregulation of Wall Street. Republicans just see it as another spanner they can through into the works to fuck up the economy in their mad attempt to seize power in November. No compassion there!

With the appointment of placeholder Carte Goodwin to the Senate seat held by Robert Byrd, it is now mathematically possible-- even with conservative Ben Nelson voting with the Republicans-- to overcome the GOP filibuster and pass another extension, one that will at least last through the elections. This morning Obama was sterner than usual-- sterner than Saturday-- in his rebuke against Republican obstructionists who are doing all they can to worse the economic crisis for their own partisan ends. Obama:

And for a long time, there’s been a tradition-- under both Democratic and Republican Presidents-- to offer relief to the unemployed. That was certainly the case under my predecessor, when Republican senators voted several times to extend emergency unemployment benefits. But right now, these benefits-- benefits that are often the person’s sole source of income while they’re looking for work-- are in jeopardy. 

And I have to say, after years of championing policies that turned a record surplus into a massive deficit, the same people who didn’t have any problem spending hundreds of billions of dollars on tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans are now saying we shouldn’t offer relief to middle-class Americans like Jim or Leslie or Denise, who really need help.

Over the past few weeks, a majority of senators have tried-- not once, not twice, but three times-- to extend emergency relief on a temporary basis. Each time, a partisan minority in the Senate has used parliamentary maneuvers to block a vote, denying millions of people who are out of work much-needed relief. These leaders in the Senate who are advancing a misguided notion that emergency relief somehow discourages people from looking for a job should talk to these folks.

That attitude I think reflects a lack of faith in the American people, because the Americans I hear from in letters and meet in town hall meetings-- Americans like Leslie and Jim and Denise-- they’re not looking for a handout. They desperately want to work.  Just right now they can’t find a job. These are honest, decent, hardworking folks who’ve fallen on hard times through no fault of their own, and who have nowhere else to turn except unemployment benefits and who need emergency relief to help them weather this economic storm.

Now, tomorrow we will have another chance to offer them that relief, to do right by not just Jim and Leslie and Denise, but all the Americans who need a helping hand right now-- and I hope we seize it. It’s time to stop holding workers laid off in this recession hostage to Washington politics. It’s time to do what’s right-- not for the next election but for the middle class.

Earlier Sean Miller of The Hill recapped some of the anti-social hysteria from Republican Party candidates campaigning in support of DeMint's and Burr's insistence that unemployment insurance legislation be held hostage to the partisan GOP agenda.

Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle (R) said the unemployed are “spoiled.” Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul suggested people on unemployment insurance need “tough love.” And most recently, in Pennsylvania, gubernatorial Tom Corbett (R) said “the jobs are there,” but the out-of-work don’t want them... “Other Republicans have reiterated this same argument that the [unemployment] benefits create a disincentive,” said Terry Madonna, who directs the center for politics at Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster, Pa. “The mindset of conservative Republicans running this year is much more an edge on debt, deficit” at the expense of government benefits for the unemployed.

In Nevada, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) campaign has seized on the remarks Angle made in May to KRNV, a Reno television station.

“You can make more money on unemployment than you can going down and getting one of those jobs that is an honest job, but it doesn’t pay as much,” Angle said. “And so that’s what’s happened to us is that we have put in so much entitlement into our government that we really have spoiled our citizenry and said you don’t want the jobs that are available.”

The Reid camp has tried to use the remarks to paint Angle as “just too extreme."

In Kentucky, Democrat Jack Conway’s campaign has used Paul’s statements from a June interview with WVLK-AM to accuse him of hypocrisy.

"As bad as it sounds, ultimately we do have to sometimes accept a wage that's less than we had at our previous job in order to get back to work and allow the economy to get started again," Paul said in the interview. "Nobody likes that, but it may be one of the tough love things that has to happen."

“He's fine with feeding at the federal trough himself,” Conway’s campaign said in a statement. “He just doesn't want others, whether they be unemployed or the farmers whose subsidies he wants to end, feeding by his side.”

North Carolina Secretary of State Elaine Marshall, the most likely Democrat to beat an incumbent Republican this year, posted at Daily Kos this morning about his opponent's participation in the filibuster against extending unemployment benefits to over 200,000 North Carolinians thrown out of jobs because of the economy.

Right now, it’s important we show Senator Burr-- and his buddies in Washington-- that ordinary folks aren’t going to stand for these overtly political games. But there is also a smear campaign that we have to refute-- here are some simple points that our campaign has put together on the extension:

1. Jobless aid stimulates the economy. This aid has an impactful dual effect as it helps people who need it most and puts money into the economy. It pays for essential services (food, rent, car insurance, etc...) which puts money right back into the hands of small business and works to stimulate the economy.

2. It’s simply the right thing to do. These are the people who are hurting most during the recession. There is only one job opening for every five out-of-work persons, which means millions cannot find work in this recovering economy.

3. Extending aid has bipartisan support. While Republicans like Senator Burr are attempting to score cheap political points by hurting the unemployed, the extension of this aid has support from economists across party lines. Just ask NYT liberal economist Paul Krugman and former McCain economic advisors!

Please consider contributing to Elaine's efforts here at Blue America's Senate page.

Now Boehner Has Something Else To Campaign About Besides Repealing Healthcare-- The Republicans Want To Repeal Wall Street Regulations Too!

Click the on the golfer & help make history

Yesterday at 11AM the Senate voted to shut down the Republican Party filibuster against the far too modest Wall Street regulatory bill. But Republicans weren't trying to kill it because it was too modest. They oppose it-- and now pledge to repeal it if they win the midterms-- because they think Wall Street can handle its own business without government interference. Apparently they missed just how that worked out last time it was tried-- under Bush-Republican rule. We haven't dug out from under that mess yet.

The vote for cloture was 60-38, every Democrat except Russ Feingold (who did oppose it because the legislation isn't strong enough) voted to shut off the filibuster and all the Republicans except mainstream conservatives Scott Brown (R-MA), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) voting in favor of Wall Street banksters. A couple of hours later the Senate passed the reform bill 60-39 and the GOP moved into high gear to reassure Wall Street donors that they have a friend on Capitol Hill.

"I think it ought to be repealed," said House Minority Leader John Boehner, in response to a question from TPMDC, at his weekly press conference this morning.

One of his top lieutenants, Republican Conference Chair Mike Pence agrees. "We hope [the Senate vote] falters so we can start over," Pence told TPMDC yesterday. "I think the reason you're not hearing talk about efforts to repeal the permanent bailout authority is because the bill hasn't passed yet."

GOP leaders can throw around silly "repeal" rhetoric when it comes to health care reform, in large part because an aggressive and dishonest campaign had made the Affordable Care Act controversial. The Republican base is pleased with the boasts, and most of the political mainstream doesn't take the promises seriously anyway.

But talking about repealing Wall Street reform is much dumber, since the effort is far more popular. Boehner & Co. consistently forget this, but Americans still tend to be pretty annoyed with the financial industry that nearly destroyed the global economic system, and which was bailed out by taxpayers. The available evidence suggests voters want the new reform measures, if only to help keep the industry that ran wild in check.

Arguing that new safeguards and accountability measures should be "repealed," before they even pass, makes it sound as if Republicans-- if given a chance by voters-- plan to go out of their way to look out for the Wall Street lobbyists and hedge fund managers that brought the system to the verge of collapse. (Those would be, by the way, the same Wall Street lobbyists congressional Republicans huddled with when plotting how best to kill reform legislation.)

Boehner's remarks aren't surprising, of course. He did, after all, recently suggest accountability measures are a "nuclear weapon," being used to kill "an ant." But it's nevertheless a message Republicans may not want to take to the public: "Vote GOP: We'll put Wall Street safeguards back to 2008 levels!"

North Carolina Secretary of State Elaine Marshall sent out a very clear message to North Carolina voters about her opponent's decision to filibuster against reform:

It's high time Washington reign in Wall Street, and I'm happy to hear that the Senate will finally vote to move forward on legislation today. Unfortunately, Senator Burr has made it quite clear where he stands: on the side of Goldman Sachs and Citibank.

While Burr continues to fight against extending aid to the jobless, he is bowing to big banks by voting against reforming Wall Street. It's time for North Carolina to elect a U.S. Senator that will stand up for the people of our state, not Wall Street executives.

Why is Burr siding with Wall Street over North Carolina?

Because in Washington, it makes it easier to get reelected.

The truth is the unemployed don't have lobbyists, and they don't make campaign contributions. In Senator Burr's Washington that means they cannot afford a seat at the table-- but Wall Street executives can and have spent millions to buy his vote.

As we pointed out yesterday, Obama's glass house-- and his support for corrupt corporate whores like Blanche Lincoln-- doesn't allow him to speak out as convincingly and as forthrightly as someone like Elaine Marshall. It helps explain why Blue America is so enthusiastic about supporting her. She continued:

This historic bill will strengthen consumer protections, and help to end taxpayer-funded bailouts. It even helps small businesses by cutting the transaction fees they pay to the credit card companies. The reform bill will also make great strides in ensuring another financial disaster doesn't drag the U.S. economy into recession.

That alone makes it worth supporting.

But for a campaign bankrolled by corporate lobbyists, Burr has agreed to say 'no'.

That is exactly what's wrong with Washington.

There aren't that many in the Senate I trust when it comes to Wall Street reform, but Jeff Merkley (D-OR) is one. His statement accentuated the positive without trying to claim everyone's getting a pony now:

“Today the Senate sent a clear message that the financial security of families and businesses on Main Street must always come before the short-term profits of Wall Street. For decades, we let rampant deregulation and deceptive lending practices undermine families’ well-being, poison our financial system and ultimately bring the economy to its knees. This bill will help restore safety and soundness to our financial system and ensure that working families get a fair deal in their everyday financial transactions. 

“I am pleased that the final bill includes the Merkley-Levin amendment that will ban high-risk trading inside the banks and put an end to conflicts of interest, where giants like Goldman Sachs bet against the very securities they were selling to their customers. This provision will encourage banks to return to the days where their main focus was lending. I can’t thank Senator Carl Levin enough for his tireless work to ensure that our banks won’t engage in high-risk trading and put our entire financial system at risk.

“In addition, I’m pleased that the bill includes provisions I championed to end some of the most egregious mortgage practices that led to the housing crisis and cost millions of families their homes. The bill will ban steering payments, liar loans, and prepayment penalties and give Americans the transparency they deserve when purchasing their own home. It will also create a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau dedicated to protecting consumers from financial tricks and traps, such as unfair overdraft fees and exploding interest rates.

“Now, this bill will not solve every problem in our financial system, and from my perspective, could be stronger in significant ways. Regulators have been given an enormous amount of responsibility to implement the bill as intended. In order to ensure that they hold up their end of the bargain, Congress needs to conduct vigorous oversight of government regulators and our financial markets.